Calvin Johnson Catch

[Vegasdogg]

Anyone see this catch?

I understand the rule but the rule is wrong. Plus he had control the entire time. I mean how can a guy run to the corner of the end zone and basically toss the ball over the pylon, yet this kid gets robbed of a gamewinner like this catch? It was a catch. The rule is screwed up.

They need to fix this rule because while the spirit of the rule is what it is, it's not completely correct, IMO.

[Solon16]

I truly don't understand it... 2 feet and then an ass in the endzone...plus two handed catch....then takes it into one hand....if that isn't possession, I don't know what is! complete fucking bullshit IMO

[damajuki]

You guys are both wrong. I watched the play live and on replay as it happened; they even had the NFL officiating honcho live from LA (which was pretty cool that he's on standby) and he explained it perfectly: you have to COMPLETE the process of a catch, i.e., come down WITH the ball. He simply didn't do that. He put the ball on the ground and let it go, plain and simple.

He didn't have to let the ball touch the ground, or let go of the ball, but he did both those things. It was a stupid, cocky play akin to a WR dropping the ball before reaching the end zone line; would you say those should be TDs too because they were as good as in (but not really)?.

He got cocky, pure and simple, and instead of landing on his ass with two hands on the ball -- like he's supposed to -- he put his left arm out to shield his fall and put the ball on the ground with his right hand. And then let it go to boot.

Again, it would have been different had he ACTUALLY HELD ON TO THE BALL, even if it had touched the ground. He didn't. He let it go. End of story.

[Enigmatic Evil]

I've heard a lot of buzz about this around the web. I can't seem to figure out how to embed YouTube videos but Damjuki pretty much hit the nail on the head here. When Calvin was coming down to the ground, he did not have possession. I don't know if it was a cocky play so much as it was just lack of general awareness but he should've at least tucked the ball in and took the bump on the rump, he would've gotten 7 points. It wouldn't have looked as cool, sure, but he'd have the TD. The entire time on his decent he is focusing on keeping the ball, then landing, at no point did he take the time (and he did have it) to secure that pass...

Watch it here:

YouTube - Calvin Johnson Robbed by NFL's Horrible Catch Rule

Edit: After watching that video a couple times. I'm flip flopping, that call should have been overturned. He didn't 'secure' the pass, but both feet hit the ground and he had possession of the ball. It's one of those iffy things that will be debated for weeks, maybe the whole season. It cost the Lions a game they should have won with that pass. I agree with the denial based on the rule they're using to justify the call. I think back to this catch I will never forget, Antonio Freeman of the Packers bounced a pass off his foot and caught it for a huge gain. The ball never touched the ground, in this instance it did.

I still think this was a catch and should have been called a TD.

[Solon16]

The only reason you are right is there isn't 7 points on scoreboard...other than that...two feet with possession a ass, and a hand....with the ball secure in both hands then transfer to one hand...is a catch and TD! The rest is bullshit!

[Vegasdogg]

If you don't think that was a catch, I question just what you think a catch is. He had it in both hands, fell, the other hand hits the ground --- stop right there. That's a TD. Then he takes his left hand with the ball and leaves it in the endzone.

Three things happen - he catches the ball, ass hits the ground, other hands hits the ground -- TD.

They're making this shit too complicated.

[Crow]

There's enough legalism in my life as it is, it'd be great if we could remove it from football.

[dencyguy]

I agree with Juki on this one. When I read all of the heated responses to the call, I went to ESPN to watch the video, expecting to be as outraged as everyone else. When I saw the video--before reading the logic that the refs used to make the call--I found myself saying, "What's the big deal? That wasn't a catch." He caught the ball while falling, and by the time he stopped falling, the ball was out. If he had control of the ball, it wouldn't have come out when he hit the ground, unless he was making the dumbest possible attempt to spike the ball (which it doesn't look like he was).

It's the right call by the book (which I will take any day over a rule that says, "You know what a catch looks like--go with that"), and even though it looked a bit closer on slow-motion replay, it wasn't--for me, anyway--definitive enough to overturn the call.

Dennis
To put it another way, when a guy stretches out to make a catch and then loses the ball when he hits the ground, it's called imcomplete and not a fumble, despite the fact that his arm, leg, whatever hit the ground the instant before the ball came out--he just didn't make the catch, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't have enough control of the ball to hit the ground without losing it; this just happened to be in the end zone.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by dencyguy

as evidenced by the fact that he didn't have enough control of the ball to hit the ground without losing it; this just happened to be in the end zone.

You don't think he controlled that catch enough?

[dencyguy]

Originally Posted by Vegasdogg

You don't think he controlled that catch enough?

I think it was close--close enough that if it had been initially ruled a catch, that call would have stood as well. My initial reaction, watching at full speed, was that it came out too soon. If I had been the ref in the end zone, I would have called it incomplete. If I were the head referee and had to make the call on the replay, 1) I'm glad that's not my job; and 2) I would have to watch it several more times from different angles, but from the shots they showed on ESPN, even in slow motion, I don't know if I could overturn it.

Again, though, as much as the wording of the rule might be annoying, I would rather have a very specific, "Here is what a catch is" definition than one that allows the referee to basically decide everything on a case-by-case basis. You'll always have that to an extent, but it's nice to have something written down somewhere to serve as a template.

Dennis

[Solon16]

That was a catch all the way in my book...he was making a motion to get up(second move) when the ball came out...they were robbed blind!

[Tobalaz]

It didn't look like a catch in full speed but looks like it probably was in slo-mo.
There's a problem with that.
In order to overturn a ruling on the field, replay evidence must be undisputable and it wasn't.
Either he was showboating or failed to control and cost his team the game.
If he was showboating, he'll tuck it next time, lesson learned.
Really, how often did crap like this happen to us?
We had to deal with it, Detroit can as well.